In this video, James O’Keefe discusses a letter he received from a lawyer who is representing Richard Pelletier, Bernie Sanders’ failed National Field Director, who is threatening to sue Project Veritas.

Pelletier is claiming that O’Keefe illegally recorded a phone conversation with Pelletier back in February of this year. The call was part of an investigation Project Veritas Action did that produced compelling evidence that

the Sanders Campaign was clearly violating federal campaign election laws by using Australians who were paid by the Australian Labor Party.

The story didn’t get much play in the mainstream U.S. media, but in Australia it was front-page news. A New Hampshire State Representative filed a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission citing the PVA story. PVA is still waiting to hear from the FEC.

Late last night the Twitter feed of Ian McLoone @IanMcloone the solicitor who is alleged to have leaked the address where the counterjihad activist Tommy Robinson’s wife and children were residing, carried a statement from McLoone.

The document said that McLoone had tendered his resignation as a partner in Taylor Walton Solicitors and that this resignation had been accepted with immediate effect.

McLoone is still denying that he leaked the address details, something that could have put Mr Robinson’s wife and family in grave danger from violent jihadis, who have issued constant threats to the lives of Mr Robinson and his family.

Peter McLoughlin spent years believing the Leftist narrative, namely it was ‘a racist myth’ that organised Muslim groups in Britain and the Netherlands (‘grooming gangs’) were luring white schoolgirls into a life of prostitution.

But in 2009 he first encountered people who said their children had been groomed like this. These informants had non-white people in their immediate and extended family, and were thus unlikely to be racists. So McLoughlin dug deeper and what he found shocked him: there were mounds of evidence that social workers, police officers, Muslim organisations, journalists and even some Members of Parliament must have known about these grooming gangs for decades, and they had turned a blind-eye to these crimes. He also came across references to incidents where any proof had since vanished. McLoughlin spent several years uncovering everything he could and documenting this scandal before the evidence disappeared. He demonstrates that the true nature of this grooming phenomenon was known about more than 20 years ago. While he was writing this book, Parliament was forced by rising anger in Britain to conduct its own low-key investigation. The eventual report concluded the grooming problem was basically in one town: Rotherham. Official reports finally admitted there were more than 1400 victims in this otherwise unremarkable town. McLoughlin argues the authorities will continue their cover-up of this scandal, with many thousands of new victims across the country every year. The criminal indicators in Rotherham are to be found in scores of towns across Britain. McLoughlin’s book is an attempt to get the public to wake up, for them to demand civilised solutions, because if the social contract breaks down, people may turn to vigilante justice as the prostituting of schoolgirls continues unabated. The book documents the hidden abuse of Sikh victims by grooming gangs, and how Sikhs in Britain have already resorted to vigilante justice. The book exposes how political correctness was used to silence potential whistle-blowers, and how this grooming phenomenon demonstrates that multiculturalism does not work. Every layer of authority in the British state comes under detailed examination to expose their part in the scandal. McLoughlin leaves no stone unturned, and at 130,000 words in length, it is likely to be the most detailed critique of this scandal for years to come.

“Laws are just words on a page to be rewritten by and for powerful people.”

Comey’s rationale for not referring the Clinton case for prosecution defied all logic and, according to former assistant US Attorney Andy McCarthy, represented an on-the-spot revision of federal law. McCarthy wrote:

“There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was ‘extremely careless’ and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.”

Yes, she did all of things and more. According to Director Comey, Hillary’s saving grace was her supposed lack of intent to break the law. She didn’t mean to do what she did, you see. There are two responses to this. First, yes there was her intention. Hillary Clinton didn’t set up her illegal email server by accident. She didn’t use it for all of her correspondence by chance. She didn’t wipe the server by bumbling error, an issue I noticed Comey did not even address. But the second response is even more important: intent is not the legal standard; negligence is. Even his whitewash investigation found that she and her staff were “extremely careless” with classified information. Carelessness is a synonym for negligence.

So Hillary will skate. Director Comey dished out the only punishment she will likely ever face—a stern talking-to. Start printing invitations for the Inaugural Ball—Hillary’s going to be our next president!

As I sat listening to Comey’s remarks, my mind wandered to President Gerald Ford, who inherited the office after the Watergate scandal. At his August 1974 inauguration, Ford tried to assuage the public’s anger with assurances that justice had been done. “My fellow Americans,” said the newly minted president, “our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men.”

[…]

Richard Nixon was not charged with anything and he was in fact pardoned. It should be noted here that at least Nixon paid some price: the not insignificant loss of his elected office. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is on the fast track to becoming the next president. That’s the difference.

Three years after Nixon resigned he sat for a series of interviews with David Frost, a British journalist and television host. Perhaps the most memorable quote came when Nixon said “I’m saying that when the president does it that means that it’s not illegal.” People were rightfully shocked.

Nixon’s governing philosophy, so in-eloquently blurted out on national television, is probably more common among powerful people than we’d like to believe. Though Hillary Clinton has never said those exact words, she conducts herself as if she believes them.

[…]

Once you understand that laws are just a lot of useless paper, all of our endless squabbling seems pretty silly. What’s the point of learned men standing around in a courtroom arguing the finer points of the law when in the end it means whatever the judge decides it means? It’s not good enough to have the law on your side. That’s actually quite irrelevant. You have to have the judges on your side.

[…]

Who cares what the law actually says? Let’s determine what Congress meant, rather than what was debated and voted on.

These people are just making it up as they go along. They decide the hot button issues of the day according to their preferences then go in search of a justification. No justification is too lame because they’re the supremes and we’re not.

This is the way we do things in America these days. The law isn’t really the law. Powerful people do whatever the heck they feel like doing and if the law gets in their way it is magically rewritten on the spot. Sometimes it’s the FBI director who decides to change the plain meaning of a statute. Sometimes it’s a judge. It can be the president, or even on occasion, a backroom bureaucrat. Beneath the tissue-thin pretense of an orderly, principled system, it’s actually just a naked power struggle—and we’re losing.